How to conduct a systematic literature review for a thesis.

[MaryaL]

Okay, so a "systematic" review is different from just a regular "literature review" for a term paper. It’s meant to be rigorous and reproducible, which is both terrifying and kind of comforting because there’s a process to follow. If you're feeling lost, here’s the step-by-step that my advisor drilled into me.

1. The Golden Rule: Have a Protocol. Before you even type one word into a database, you need a plan. This is your recipe. It should state your research question (using PICO or a similar framework is super helpful for this!), your search terms, and your inclusion/exclusion criteria. For example, are you only including peer-reviewed articles from the last 10 years? Only studies in English? Only randomized controlled trials? You must decide this before you start, or you'll be tempted to tweak it later to fit the papers you find, which defeats the whole purpose of being "systematic." I have my protocol printed out and stuck to my wall.

2. The Search & The Log. You can't just search one database. You need to search multiple ones (like PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus) and document everything. This is where a log or a spreadsheet (I use Excel) becomes your best friend. For each database, I have a tab where I record:

• The exact date I searched.
• The exact search string I used ("mHealth" AND "medication adherence" AND "diabetes", for example).
• How many results I got.

This sounds tedious, but trust me, when you're writing your methods section, you will thank your past self. It’s the proof that you did this systematically.

3. The Screening Process (The PRISMA Flow Diagram). You will get hundreds, maybe thousands of results. This is where your inclusion/exclusion criteria come in. You typically do this in stages:

• Stage 1: Title & Abstract Screening. Quickly scan titles and abstracts. If it's clearly not relevant based on your criteria, boot it out. Record the number you exclude here.
• Stage 2: Full-Text Screening. Get the full text for all the articles that passed stage 1. Read them properly. Many will get excluded now (e.g., maybe the full text isn't in English, or the study population is wrong). You need to record why you're excluding each one at this stage.

All of these numbers go into a PRISMA flow diagram, which is a standard way to show your reader exactly how you got from thousands of papers down to the final, say, 30 that you'll actually analyze in your review. It makes the whole process transparent. It's a lot of work, but it's the gold standard for a reason. It turns a mountain of literature into a manageable, defensible set of evidence. Good luck, you can do this!

 

[Dennis]

I'd add one thing: for the screening process, use Rayyan or Covidence if your uni has access. They're tools made specifically for systematic reviews. You can upload all your articles, do blind screening with team members, track conflicts, and it generates the PRISMA numbers automatically. Game changer.

Also, on the protocol: register it with PROSPERO if it's a health-related review. It's free and it shows you're serious about transparency. Plus it helps avoid duplication with other researchers doing the same thing.

Your post is going to help so many people. The systematic review feels overwhelming until you break it into steps like this. Thanks for sharing!